Robert Altman’s Short Cuts on Criterion

For nearly a decade, I’ve felt a certain allegiance to Robert Altman’s Short Cuts, and I’d never seen a single frame of it. It was always known as a “big sister” to the sprawling ensemble films that I became obsessed with in the late 90s; if I loved movies like Magnolia so much, then there’s no doubt that Altman’s opus must’ve been exceptional. I took this allegiance so far as to chide anyone who would praise any new “tapestry film” with interlocking stories because, if they knew anything, they’d know that Short Cuts did it first.

Now, finally, I’ve met the “big sister.”

As Altman has put it, Short Cuts is not necessarily a group of stories, but rather a group of occurrences. It lifts the roofs off houses and peeks in on the conversations. And it’s not what the characters are doing that’s important, it’s the fact that they are doing it (and why and how). The film is not concerned with plot, but with people; the rest will take care of itself. It’s a risky approach, and even Altman himself isn’t always successful with the method—The Company took a similar tack with a smaller cast and more plot, and it didn’t work as well as it should have. But it works in Short Cuts.

One thing that separates Short Cuts from the likes of Magnolia, and which separates most Altman films from the pack, is its unbiased exterior. No melodramatic violin cues are used to manipulate your feelings one way or another. Occurrences and emotions are simply placed in front of you for you to see and experience for yourself. Everything feels very matter-of-fact, and this, coupled with the film’s humor, makes Short Cuts seem “light.” Yet the objective nature of Altman’s directing allows for so many subtleties to brew under the surface, so while the film may play as very funny and relatively happy upon initial viewings, you soon realize that, in a multitude of ways, it’s actually a very dark film, laced with tragedy.

That’s apparent in certain story threads, such as that of the Finnigan family (Andie MacDowell and Bruce Davison), whose child (Zane Cassidy) is struck by a car and survives, only to later die in the hospital. Yet I find the story of the Kaisers to be the most heartbreaking. Jerry (played by the late Chris Penn, who seems an older version of Jonah Hill) is a pool cleaner whose wife Lois (Jennifer Jason Leigh) helps make ends meet as a phone sex operator working from home. Some of Short Cuts’ funniest moments come from the shock of seeing her character say some terribly provocative things on the phone while changing her baby’s diaper. Through all this, Jerry begins to experience jealousy, confusion, and so many other emotions that he doesn’t know what to do with. At one point he asks Lois why she doesn’t talk to him the way she does to the guys who call in. Her response shows that she is completely oblivious to her husband’s emotions. To her, sex is either part of a job that pays good enough money, or something so mechanical that she’s really only going through the motions. I doubt that she feels that she’s being unfaithful in any way—it’s just that meaningful passionate sex is of no interest to her at this point. Perhaps it’s because she talks about it and fakes it all day long. Or sometimes there are just people who for one reason or another are not that “into it.” Regardless, Jerry still wants something that halfway resembles what his wife gives to the strangers that call in. He feels he shouldn’t be jealous, and that he probably shouldn’t want the type of “dirty talk” that his wife provides; but why, then, does he feel this way? Why does it eat at him? He’s too mixed up and frustrated to sort out the ways in which he feels about the situation, and eventually, this spurs him on to commit a shocking act of violence. As disturbing as the bloody outcome of his story is, simply seeing Jerry struggle internally, trying not to feel the way he feels, is the most tragic part.

The beauty of Short Cuts is that most of its characters’ conflicts aren’t said or revealed. The majority of Penn’s acting comes through silent expression, and that is one of the goals of Short Cuts: to force the viewer to fill in some of the blanks. As it is with Carver’s short stories, it’s not what you know, but rather what you remain in the dark about. Possibly more so than in other films, Short Cuts can be understood and interpreted in as many ways as there are people in the world.

Visually, this film is vintage Altman. Zooms are an under-discussed element of cinema—a zoom in one filmmaker’s hands is cheesy, out of place, and inexplicable, but in the hands of someone like Altman, even the snappiest of zooms is personal, elegant, and evocative. There’s something very old-school about the way he uses them. Even a respected director like Wes Anderson seems to wink at the audience with every long zoom, yet with older filmmakers like Altman or Woody Allen, something as mundane as a quick zoom into a glass of milk seems so much more sincere.

I think this is partially why Altman’s films tend to look older than they really are. Short Cuts may have been made in the early 90s, but its aesthetic quality and style at times feels straight out of the 70s. In an age with too many steadicam or other fancy shots, zooms seem kind of outdated, but Altman always held on to them, at times putting the slickest dolly shot to shame with his zoom lens. But even his more recent films like Cookie’s Fortune have an older feel because of this, and it’s really not until the new millennium that Altman’s pictures feel more visually “modern.” Yet up until and including his final film, the gorgeously photographed A Prairie Home Companion, the zooms remained, and they were just as good as they were in M*A*S*H.

Short Cuts is about randomness. Not “random” in the sense that Magnolia connects its characters and not “random” in the way that Crash’s protagonists supposedly meet by coincidence. This is chance without prejudice or agenda. It’s what helps to put across the film’s unbiased feel. Even the earthquake at the end of Short Cuts is an example of this. Some feel that it is a way to tie the stories together, but I never get that sense. It’s sort of the ultimate capper to the randomness: earthquakes simply happen.

Because of chance, some characters are lucky and some are unlucky. Altman asserts, more or less, that they’re the same thing. One person can win the lottery and another person across the globe gets killed at the same time by a falling icicle; good or bad, it’s all the same. It’s all chance. Looking at the stories of Short Cuts, we see this same randomness, and it’s something that the characters must learn to come to grips with. In the story of the Finnigans, we see a family that is very well off. A family that does everything the right way and the safe way, yet it’s their child who is struck by the vehicle. It’s their child that dies. They think, “Why? Why us?” But why not? What they have to come to realize is that there is no “why.” There is no reason why their son died, just as there is no real reason why the two-timing cop (Tim Robbins) ends the film with a happy family. Their lives, according to Altman, and Carver (in a way), are just random.

Relatively speaking, the story of Honey and Bill Bush (Lili Taylor and Robert Downey Jr.), the couple watching the apartment of traveling neighbors, is the weakest thread of Short Cuts. It’s not a bad storyline, but it lacks some of the subtext that is found in other parts of the film. The more disappointing part is that the Carver short story that this segment is based on is actually quite good. I realize that Altman is in no way trying to deliver a pure and literal adaptation of Carver’s works, but the original piece has more emotional involvement. In both pieces, the couple become obsessed with their neighbor’s home and how it makes them feel to occupy it, yet in the short story there is a specific sense of desperation. There are signs of something deeper than just mere fascination on the couple’s part. The film doesn’t explore this; unfortunately, it doesn’t feel like it explores much of anything with the storyline.

It’s difficult to do justice to the film’s various threads because there are so many facets to each of them. But reflecting on Short Cuts, I dwell more on certain moments and fragments: Earl (Tom Waits) and Doreen (Lily Tomlin), happy once again in their trailer, but for how long? Gene, the cop and sleazeball, standing as a hero to his family, his wife in his arms. The baker (Lyle Lovett) offering muffins to the Finnigans. The reveal of the dead body during the fishing trip. Jack Lemmon, as Howard Finnigan’s estranged father, delivering a beautiful confessional monologue. Jerry’s face as he listens to his wife perform her job. These moments and so many more serve as fragments and pieces of a brilliant whole. It’s fitting that the Criterion Collection DVD of Short Cuts features a shared motif on its cover and its menus of a heart shattered into fragments. They’re broken pieces, yes, but they still form a heart.

Images/Sound/Extras: Compiled into a tight little book are the nine Raymond Carver short stories and single poem that provided the tales for Short Cuts. With a brief but informative foreword by Robert Altman, it’s easy to see the connection between the filmmaker and Carver. These stories are spare in language and in story elements, only giving you just enough to draw your own conclusions. It’s easy to appreciate both artists’ ability to reveal the most private moments of the everyman. I’ve heard people describe Carver’s prose as “poetic,” but when I read them, I didn’t think so. On the contrary, the language is very straightforward and at times mundane, but then I realized that it’s not the language that’s poetic, it’s the story itself.

As is to be expected, Altman’s movie has its share of grain and the occasional film jitter, but a good job is done eliminating every other visual nuisance. The DVD also features a couple of disappointing deleted scenes (too short) and the usual trailers and TV spots, along with a nice archive of poster mock-ups that were part of a preliminary marketing campaign. There’s also a lengthy look at Carver’s life via a PBS documentary, as well as an audio interview with the late writer. He’s more down-to-earth than I would have expected, but he never short-changes himself either; he knew when he did good work, and he is happy to discuss it. The one piece that’s made specifically for the Criterion disc is a reflective half-hour conversation between Tim Robbins and Robert Altman. It features several good insights from both the actor and director, not only on making Short Cuts, but how they interpret the film when they watch it now.

Luck, Trust and Ketchup is a feature-length documentary on the making of the film (some video glitches at the bottom of the picture lead me to believe that the source material was transferred from tape). It’s decent enough as a documentary, with some informative interviews from Carver’s widow, some of the film’s actors, and Altman himself, though most of the filmmaker’s insights are found almost verbatim in the short stories’ foreword. The real reason to see the feature is for the clips of Altman as he directs. It’s one thing to read about the director’s process or to hear him speak on it, but it’s totally another thing to see the man in action. There are times when he’s very specific about what he wants and there are times where he merely sits back, chuckling his head off at a scene, and turning to the documentarian’s camera as if to say, “You getting this?”

Slant is reaching more readers than ever before, but advertising revenue across the Internet is falling fast, hitting independently owned and operated publications like ours the hardest. We’ve watched many of our fellow media sites fall by the way side in recent years, but we’re determined to stick around.

We’ve never asked our readers for financial support before, and we’re committed to keeping our content free and accessible—meaning no paywalls or subscription fees. If you like what we do, however, please consider becoming a Slant patron.

Joel, I too would have a hard time calling Magnolia "bad." Granted, I'm a self-proclaimed PT Anderson fanboy, but I can still see the flaws that people point out. Still, I don't see enough to "disenchant" me, as Matt puts it.

And I do think part of the appeal is definitely the energy and excitement that went into the filmmaking. It's obvious to anyone watching.

As for the Nashville omission:

Nashville has always been considered better than Short Cuts, and I won't dispute that. But I think it's resulted in an unfair overshadowing of the second film, much like a successful older sibling eclipses the younger one.

Despite Nashville's obvious influences on Short Cuts (and every ensemble film mentioned here), the two films are more separate to me than I suppose they are to most people. Matt, you mention some of the political touches in Nashville, and while I wouldn't classify it as a "political film," that's definitely a big part of the subject matter. That's something that really separates it from Short Cuts.

So instead of writing even more about what we already know, I focused more on Short Cuts, and its own subject matter (randomness, etc), and on what that film has influenced.

Oh, and for the record, I strongly disliked Crash.Posted by pacheco on 2008-06-17 14:46:00

I'm not a "Magnolia" fan at all--although, as is the case with "Boogie Nights," I consider it excitingly made and fun to look at, and whenever it's on cable, I'll often get pulled into it for about 15 minutes before becoming disenchanted.

"Nashville" is still the gold standard for the sort of film David Bordwell memorably described as a "network narrative." "Short Cuts" has two, maybe two-and-a-half subplots that just don't work (the Annie Ross-Lori Singer subplot I find excruciating), and lacks the macro-density of "Nashville," which was about the political being personal, and politics being shaped, misused and obliterated by personality. But it's a stunning movie despite its flaws, and is one of many films whose empathy and humor should have put the lie to charges that Altman is a misanthropic jerk.Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-06-11 21:31:00

Hah! You can't mention Magnolia on House Next Door without at least one cine-curmudgeon scurrying out into the light to call foul. Magnolia is not a perfect film by any means, although I have a hard time classifying it as bad.

Can't say the same for Crash.

Still, I'm a little surprised there's no mention of Nashville here, which is to me still the quintessential Altman ensemble film and the film from which all these subsequent "tapestry" films (including Short Cuts) have drawn the most inspiration.Posted by Joel on 2008-06-11 20:27:00

Anonymous,I personally dig Magnolia a lot, which I guess makes me stupid. I wouldn't go as far as to call it the best movie of the 90's either, not by a long shot, but I think it has its merits. But I respect your opinion, especially when you can somehow manage to work in The Matrix into a conversation about Short Cuts.

Matt, As Andrew stated, those features didn't make it into the Criterion DVD (and I'm really not sure why), except that I believe there's a Michael Wilmington piece as part of the supplementals (they refer to it as an "essay"). Not the same as a commentary track, though. Perhaps they wanted to keep everything "positive" on this release.

As for the "visual nuisances" that I referred to, I'm pretty much talking about your standard stuff, meaning it's pretty much scratch-free, etc., and the film grain is, well, regular film grain. As you know, even "special edition" transfers will have hairs or "blips" on the film (the worst is when the changeover cue is on the DVD transfer). I was merely just saying that those things were pretty much taken care of, as it should be expected from a Criterion disc.Posted by pacheco on 2008-06-11 13:58:00

Matt, there's no commentaries or reviews on the Criterion DVD.Posted by Andrew on 2008-06-11 07:30:00

anonymous-

Magnolia is the best movie of the '90s. There are few films in the history of the medium that are so rawly, brazenly emotional, earnest, and human. Your (frankly bizarre) condemnation of one of cinema's great humanist statements says more about your own cynicism and ignorance than about Anderson's intentions or the "stupid people" the film appeals to.Posted by junior on 2008-06-11 03:28:00

I have a distinct memory of renting a laserdisc of "Short Cuts" back in 1994 and discovering that the extras included commentary tracks by Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune (enthusiastic) and Pauline Kael (mixed to negative). There was also a supplement that sampled dozens of newspaper reviews from across the spectrum--pans to raves, major papers down to college papers. (My own Dallas Observer review of "Short Cuts"--mixed--was in there.)

Is any of this content on the disc?

And when you say the discmakers eliminated some other problems (not including grain and occasional jitters) to which problems are you referring?Posted by Matt Zoller Seitz on 2008-06-11 00:34:00

One point that you neglect to mention is that most tapestry films are awful. Magnolia is quite simply the worst film of all time. There is no film in the history of the medium where a director so virulently and blatantly betrays and humiliates his actors (the Keitel/Madonna movie is probably second and doesn't come close) and Crash is certainly in the medium's bottom 15. Altman is the only one to make these work at all organically to varying degrees of success.

Short Cuts is mostly succesful on a number of levels and should never ever be compared to Magnolia which fails on every level (the Altman/Anderson comparisons are always grotesque and fatuously inappropriate...they're very much akin to those who would compare George W Bush to Harry Truman)I personally feel that Nashville and Gosford Park are his most straightforwardly succesful of the "tapestry" genre.

Like the Matrix, Magnolia is a stupid movie that makes stupid people feel smart.Posted by Anonymous on 2008-06-10 22:55:00